按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
commodities are made to be sold； and not to be consumed。 The
merchant is an agent of conveyance to the consumer in one case；
and is himself the consumer in the other：（15*） but the labourers
are in either case equally productive； since they have produced
goods to the same value； if the hardware and the plate are both
goods。
And what distinction separates them？ It is indeed possible
that in the 〃comparative estimate of the moralist；〃 with which Mr
Mill says political economy has nothing to do （III。 i。 2）； a
steel fork might appear a more substantial production than a
silver one： we may grant also that knives； no less than forks；
are good produce； and scythes and ploughshares serviceable
articles。 But； how of bayonets？ Supposing the hardware merchant
to effect large sales of these； by help of the 〃setting free〃 of
the food of his servants and his silversmith； is he still
employing productive labourers； or； in Mr Mill's words； labourers
who increase 〃the stock of permanent means of enjoyment〃 （I。 iii。
4）？ Or if； instead of bayonets； he supply bombs； will not the
absolute and final 〃enjoyment〃 of even these energetically
productive articles （each of which costs ten pounds（16*）） be
dependent on a proper choice of time and place for their
enfantement； choice； that is to say； depending on those
philosophical considerations with which political economy has
nothing to do？（17*）
I should have regretted the need of pointing out
inconsistency in any portion of Mr Mill's work； had not the value
of his work proceeded from its inconsistencies。 He deserves
honour among economists by inadvertently disclaiming the
principles which he states； and tacitly introducing the moral
considerations with which he declares his science has no
connection。 Many of his chapters are； therefore； true and
valuable； and the only conclusions of his which I have to dispute
are those which follow from his premises。
Thus； the idea which lies at the root of the passage we have
just been examining； namely； that labour applied to produce
luxuries will not support so many persons as labour applied to
produce useful articles； is entirely true； but the instance given
fails and in four directions of failure at once…because Mr
Mill has not defined the real meaning of usefulness。 The
definition which he has given…〃 capacity to satisfy a desire； or
serve a purpose〃 （III。 i。 2） applies equally to the iron and
silver。 while the true definition which he has not given； but
which nevertheless underlies the false verbal definition in his
mind； and comes out once or twice by accident （as in the words
〃any support to life or strength〃 in I。 iii。 5） applies to
some articles of iron； but not to others； and to some articles of
silver； but not to others。 It applies to ploughs； but not to
bayonets； and to forks； but not to filigree。（18*）
The eliciting of the true definitions will give us the reply
to our first question； 〃What is value？〃 respecting which；
however； we must first hear the popular statements。
〃The word 'value；' when used without adjunct； always means；
in political economy； value in exchange〃 （Mill； III。 i。 2）。 So
that； if two ships cannot exchange their rudders； their rudders
are； in politico…economic language； of no value to either。
But 〃the subject of political economy is wealth。〃
（Preliminary remarks； page 1）
And wealth 〃consists of all useful and agreeable objects
which possess exchangeable value。〃 （Preliminary remarks； page
10。）
It appears； then； according to Mr Mill； that usefulness and
agreeableness underlie the exchange value； and must be
ascertained to exist in the thing； before we can esteem it an
object of wealth。
Now； the economical usefulness of a thing depends not merely
on its own nature； but on the number of people who can and will
use it。 A horse is useless； and therefore unsaleable； if no one
can ride； a sword； if no one can strike； and meat； if no one
can eat。 Thus every material utility depends on its relative
human capacity。
Similarly： The agreeableness of a thing depends not merely on
its own likeableness； but on the number of people who can be got
to like it。 The relative agreeableness； and therefore
saleableness； of 〃a pot of the smallest ale；〃 and of 〃Adonis
painted by a running brook；〃 depends virtually on the opinion of
Demos； in the shape of Christopher Sly。 That is to say； the
agreeableness of a thing depends on its relatively human
disposition。（19*） Therefore； political economy； being a science
of wealth； must be a science respecting human capacities and
dispositions。 But moral considerations have nothing to do with
political economy （III。 i。 2）。 Therefore； moral considerations
have nothing to do with human capacities and dispositions。
I do not wholly like the look of this conclusion from Mr
Mill's statements： let us try Mr Ricardo's。
〃Utility is not the measure of exchangeable value； though it
is absolutely essential to it。〃 （Chap。 I。 sect。 i） essential
in what degree； Mr Ricardo？ There may be greater and less degrees
of utility。 Meat； for instance； may be so good as to be fit for
any one to eat； or so bad as to be fit for no one to eat。 What is
the exact degree of goodness which is 〃essential〃 to its
exchangeable value； but not 〃the measure〃 of it？ How good must
the meat be； in order to possess any exchangeable value； and how
bad must it be （I wish this were a settled question in London
markets） in order to possess none？
There appears to be some hitch； I think； in the working even
of Mr。 Ricardo's principles； but let him take his own example。
〃Suppose that in the early stages of society the bows and arrows
of the hunter were of equal value with the implements of the
fisherman。 Under such circumstances the value of the deer； the
produce of the hunter's day's labour； would be exactly equal to
the value of the fish； the product of the fisherman's day's
labour； The comparative value of the fish and game would be
entirely regulated by the quantity of labour realized in each。〃
（Ricardo； chap。 iii。 On Value）。
Indeed！ Therefore； if the fisherman catches one sprat。 and
the huntsman one deer； one sprat will be equal in value to one
deer but if the fisherman catches no sprat； and the huntsman two
deer； no sprat will be equal in value to two deer？
Nay but Mr Ricardo's supporters may say he means； on an
average； …if the average product of a day's work of fisher and
hunter be one fish and one deer； the one fish will always be